Is DM really a "true believer?"

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
"I promise not to evaluate for the preclear or tell him what he
should think about his case in session." LRH - auditor's code - standard scientology,

Reverse scientology - paraphrased instructions from LRH - Go into session, locate an area of pressure, locate the BT or cluster of BTs causing it and run it or them on the following incident....

Reference: "Men are your slaves. Elemental Spirits are your slaves" LRH Amissions http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.php?Itemid=197&id=18&option=com_content&task=blogsection

Wow, Thanks Lionheart!

That put things in perspective.

On ward...
 

knn

Patron Meritorious
"I promise not to evaluate for the preclear or tell him what he should think about his case in session." LRH - auditor's code - standard scientology,

Reverse scientology - paraphrased instructions from LRH - Go into session, locate an area of pressure, locate the BT or cluster of BTs causing it and run it or them on the following incident....
I don't see any dilemma. What has "evaluating in session" to do with running BTs on a certain incident?
Only if the PC would evaluate it for himself ("Nah, it's not possible that there is a BT right on my nose") then the PC breaches his auditor's code. Otherwise not.
 

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
I don't see any dilemma. What has "evaluating in session" to do with running BTs on a certain incident?
Only if the PC would evaluate it for himself ("Nah, it's not possible that there is a BT right on my nose") then the PC breaches his auditor's code. Otherwise not.

The fact that one is 'told' that they have, not might have, but HAVE these BT's because they HAVE had this incident happen to them. That is complete utter evaluation. The ridiculousness of the theory aside, this process tells the person what happened to them.
 
Last edited:

lionheart

Gold Meritorious Patron
Plus the session instructions tell the Pre-OT the cause of their pressure/sensation is a BT or cluster. How evaluative is that?

The BT becomes the PC and the Pre-OT then evaluates that they have incident 2.

LRH evaluates for the Pre-OT who then evaluates for the BT. It is a double evaluation!

"Elemental Spirits are your slaves" L Ron Hubbard.
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
Taking into account the varying opinions expressed, here is mine.

I think dm started out as ever-faithful, and would have run around after lrh as a one-man-adoration-band. I also think that he (like me) feels that the only way to get something done is do it your-bloody-self, so when lrh started dropping off the lines (1980), dm probably felt that he had the whole "save the planet" load on his own shoulders.

I also believe that he was (and still is) as intrinsically sadistic as lrh, which is how he has risen his way through upper management and then cast them all aside. He can't rely on any of them to do things right--therefore he has to do it all himself.

Heber Jentsch was a true believer, and even today, this man earns some respect from me.

Whether or not dm is still a true believer or has cottoned on to the scam is hard to tell, but he has certainly demonstrated "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." He has waltzed down the RHIP path to the point of intoxication and, sadly, I doubt that he is salvageable.

At the other end of the scale, I also believe that a TEAM of "want-to-believers" who genuinely care about the rest of the planet could turn $cn into a workable low co$t system that could help the planet. Given the reality of human nature, I realize this is wishful thinking. :whistling:
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
You don't see any dilemma????????

I don't see any dilemma. What has "evaluating in session" to do with running BTs on a certain incident?
Only if the PC would evaluate it for himself ("Nah, it's not possible that there is a BT right on my nose") then the PC breaches his auditor's code. Otherwise not.


It is easy enough to test your viewpoint ... try walking out of the AO course room, after reading the OT3 'data' (I use that word very loosely) ... having decided that you disagree with it/it doesn't apply to you or because you are having difficulty suppressing hysterical laughter?

Or ... try leaving after you have been 'running' it for a while ... perhaps because you don't seem to have the obligatory pressures/sensations.

You are FORCED to run it daily and do it to an 'EP' ... you are also therefore FORCED to ACT (academy award winning thereof) if you wish to remain in 'good standing' for whatever reason (usually family).

I had no or very few 'sensations or pressures' ... I had to 'mock them up' and I LEFT scientology immediately after 'attesting' because I had been CONNED completely and utterly and EVALUATED FOR.

You don't see any dilemma?

Go and practice somewhere else.

:laugh:
 
Last edited:

byte301

Crusader
Thanks for the response knn.

You seem to believe scientology is a religion from this response:

"That has been the tradition since the first religious founders. Jesus is an exception since Jesus didn't write (maybe he was an analphabet)."

Are you really under the impression that elron was the founder of a religion? Srsly?
 

knn

Patron Meritorious
The fact that one is 'told' that they have, not might have, but HAVE these BT's because they HAVE had this incident happen to them. That is complete utter evaluation. The ridiculousness of the theory aside, this process tells the person what happened to them.
But then it would be already Reverse Processing when you state "Everyone needs auditing" or "There is a Scientology Bridge" or when you ask in session "Did you have any sleep?" These are all "evaluations" but not in the sense of the Auditor's code.

First of all the Auditor's Code is not valid outside of the session (thus outside-session statements like "Everyone needs auditing" are not covered by the Code):
Number fourteen, "I Promise to grant beingness to the preclear in session." It doesn't say I don't promise to go on tip toe around, whenever I'm around the preclear when I'm out of session. Let me read that one again. Fourteen, "I promise to grant beingness to the preclear in session." Its' modified. It's "in session". But I have seen auditors treating preclears as though they were still in session when they're out of session, and I've seen preclears sort of hanging the auditor with the fact that they're his PC out of session. It's unfair and goofy in both ways. And so on. I've even gone so far as to occasionally tell a preclear who tried to continue the session after the end of session, "You are not now in session." And they sometimes blink, and say, "Yeah, that's right." I didn't say, "Bug off." But I might have. That's in session. It's in session. Sometimes you get a PC hangs himself around your neck. God help us.
THE NEW AUDITOR'S CODE, 6810C14 Class VIII TAPE 18
Moreover LRH gives a few examples of "evaluation for the PC":
"I promise not to evaluate for the preclear or tell him what he should think about his case in session."... But the word "evaluate" is, very often gets in the road of an academy trainee. He doesn't quite know what it's all about, so he just passes it by. I give you an example of evaluation:
"No, that's not the cognition you should have there, it's... "
Well god, these things do happen you know? I mean, these things do happen. Somebody doesn't understand this, and wild things happen.
"I don't think that you have completed the list because you should put drug fiend on it."
In listing and nulling. I have actually seen auditors sit and suggest items for a pcs' list. ... He's listing who or what has suppressed you, and the auditor says,
"You should put your mother on the list, and you should put so on, and you should put so on."
I know it sounds absolutely impossible, but it has happened in the past.
"The usual reaction to this process is so and so, so now you should... "
"The manifestation which you're exhibiting at this moment is normally considered insane."
It can get pretty damn wild.
THE NEW AUDITOR'S CODE, 6810C14 Class VIII TAPE 18

...and...
That's why the auditors' code is the auditors code. You say "it read" when it didn't read, you say "it didn't read" when it read.
MECHANICS OF TECHNIQUES AND SUBJECT MATTER, 6809C29 Class VIII TAPE 6
I hope it's clear that running a BT on a certain process which was developed outside of session is of course not an evaluation in the sense of the Auditor's Code.
 
Last edited:

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
snipped (a lot) ...

Originally posted by Knn
I hope it's clear that running a BT on a certain process which was developed outside of session is of course not an evaluation in the sense of the Auditor's Code.

er, actually, no ... it isn't clear at all.

:headspin:

You could try again ... this time just communicating what YOU believe to be the case (perhaps not ...).

:getalife:
 

knn

Patron Meritorious
er, actually, no ... it isn't clear at all.
OK, let me repeat: OF COURSE auditing your BTs is evaluation. Just like the statement "You need auditing" is an evaluation or "You need an eMeter". Or like the statement "OT 134 is higher than OT 133".

But's it's not an evaluation in the sense of the Auditor's Code.

Just the same way as standing in front of a red light is not "standing" in the sense of the traffic laws.

It couldn't possibly be a Auditor's Code break since in the same lectures where LRH explains what evalutation is (the above quoted Class 8 lectures) he explains that you have to audit your BTs.

Now whether auditing BTs works or is harmful or is worth it IS A COMPLETELY different question. But it's not an Auditor's Code break.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
OK, let me repeat: OF COURSE auditing your BTs is evaluation. Just like the statement "You need auditing" is an evaluation or "You need an eMeter". Or like the statement "OT 134 is higher than OT 133".

But's it's not an evaluation in the sense of the Auditor's Code.

Just the same way as standing in front of a red light is not "standing" in the sense of the traffic laws.

It couldn't possibly be a Auditor's Code break since in the same lectures where LRH explains what evalutation is (the above quoted Class 8 lectures) he explains that you have to audit your BTs.

Now whether auditing BTs works or is harmful or is worth it IS A COMPLETELY different question. But it's not an Auditor's Code break.

And where exactly did you state that (bolded) in your previous post thus necessitating the need for you to repeat it?

You are being pedantic in the extreme.

Practice on someone else.
 

knn

Patron Meritorious
And where exactly did you state that (bolded) in your previous post thus necessitating the need for you to repeat it?
OK, you were correct, I didn't make it clear the first post. Sorry. I updated it now. Thanks for being "pedantic". And Thanks for reading my entire post.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
OK, you were correct, I didn't make it clear the first post. Sorry. I updated it now. Thanks for reading my entire post.

I didn't (read the entire post) ... I glanced at it and thought 'thank goodness I no longer have to read this scientology drivel'

You have done me a huge favour reminding me though ... how lucky I am to be FREE!!!


:)
 

MostlyLurker

Patron Meritorious
Six-month checks are not LRH

[cut]

six month sec checks for OT VIIs, alterations to the way FPRD was run on OTs
Jesse Prince:
In 1983 LRH sent me an order in which he said he was tired of hearing about people being PTS (meaning Potential Trouble Source). He said people were only pretending to be PTS to hide their crimes. This is where Pretended PTS comes from. This is how the False Purpose Rundown was born. I was the pilot auditor for the FPRD, and, again, sleep and food were not prerequisites for this kind of auditing.

LRH also sent me an order telling me that no matter where a person was on the Bridge, they could be pulled off their auditing if they weren't moving fast enough and put on the False Purpose Rundown. This effectively cancelled the Non-Interference Zone, which is the main subject of C/S Series 73, the bulletin Virginia McClaughry cited as being violated by the six-month sec checks on OT 7s. But this bulletin was effectively cancelled by LRH himself when he sent the orders down to Senior C/S Int Ray Mithoff and me about the FPRD. This is where it started. All of these actions were taken to increase income. It is the same with the six-month checks. They are an income source for Flag. The senior concern is income; the tech and the well being of the preclear are secondary.

You see, this stuff originates not from Miscavige but from LRH.
[cut]

My considerations:

1) What LRH ordered to Jesse Prince was not to systematically stop OTs every 6 months but that you could FPRD them if they weren't moving fast enough. In other words to use FPRD as a debug action, only if needed.

2) LRH did not cancelled C/S Series 73. He (supposedly) gave an order that violated it, and should have been queried (but was conveniently twisted to generate income).

3) Advices are not senior to HCOBs​

Thus, based on Jesse's quote above, six-months checks are Miscavige's squirrel Tech to make money and keep people on OTVII, not LRH Tech.

Why Miscavige implemented the six-month checks and pratically had OTVII to overrun the level?

Yes, money, of course.

But I believe he had also the hot potato that Mayo talked about in 1983. There were no other OT levels wrapped up and ready to be delivered. If Miscavige could keep the sinking ship afloat long enough for Ron's return ...

Also, the whole GAT is essentially an effort to make the Tech work.

That tells me that DM may be a true believer (he believed in the Tech), but that he is aware that it does not deliver what was promised (you don't change something that is working, you change something that does not work).
 
Last edited:

Lovinglife625

Patron with Honors
With all the excitement of the wave of attacks on the Co$ over the last two months, the wonderfully no-contact-with-reality 80-page Freedumb mag and the predictable rise in trolling on this board I'm left to ponder this question: is DM actually a true believer in the doctrine of the cult or has He come to fancy He's actually better at it than Hubbard was and is now creating His own doctrine for the faithful?

He's just spent god-knows-how-much defending Himself with the Freedumb mag that contained no pictures of Hubbard and no real mention of him either.

He obviously wrote most if not all of that mag as His sick sense of humour is manifest right through it.

He's altered the books, the Grades, the TRs - basically everything that was ever a "basic" in the cult has been DMed in some way.

Even the trolls are running interference for DM rather than Hubbard and the Co$ these days - attacks on Hubbard draw an apathetic yawn from the Bridge dwellers but they sure came out in numbers when the SP Times hit town.

So, does DM consider He is now Source?

Or does He still believe in the wisdom and infallibility of his late mentor?:no:

FWIW I think David Miscavige is both a "true believer" AND of the opinion that he, and not Hubbard, is the one able to "clear the planet". Here is a post I did on WWP that touches on this. Just my opinion but I wanted to share it:

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/7-chit-chat/what-does-dm-get-out-all-51930/2/#post982569

"I suspect Dude that you are correct here. And I say this having a lot of direct experience with David Miscavige, particularly in his rise to power and his solidifying his power in the couple of years after that.

I once posted my own views of the real power in scientology which pointed out how Hubbard controlled it for the longest time and then how Miscavige took over.

The Real Power in Scientology - DM's Lies - alt.religion.scientology | Google Groups

Near the end of it I talked about some of the worse parts in scientology, as well as all that Xenu/"OT" stuff being Hubbard's madness ("case"). I gave my opinion that Miscavige thinks he has gotten Hubbard's power but I rather think he got Hubbard's curse (of madness).

I saw Miscavige rise to power. I saw a hugely immature person carry out abuses far in excess of what they ever were in organized scientology (which is saying A LOT as there were many abuses before Miscavige).

While Hubbard considered that it must be "out ethics" or "PTSness" behind all the many failures in expanding scientology, and thus acted harshly towards all he felt were "out ethics" or "PTS", he failed to see that it was his crazy policies and much of the crazy "tech" behind the failures.

Related to this point is something I said in my affidavit about legal and Hubbard. Hubbard never understood that it was his crazy policies re practicing medicine/psychology without a license, hard selling, false promises, disconnection, etc., etc. that were what was really behind so many legal problems they were having. He never got it. To "get it" he would have to understand that it was his tech or policies that were wrong and he just could not do that IMO.

He always blamed others and not himself. He'd sometimes blame legal for not having sufficient cloaking to hide things or to keep the money from litigants as the "real problem" and never got it that his policies were the real problem.

IMO the entire corporate structure and religious cloaking of organized scientology is but a manifestation of the "case"/madness of Hubbard of having to deceive, control others, hide the power, control the money secretly, etc. (Watch out for all those "bad guys", they are everywhere)!

And what I saw in David Miscavage is all that I describe above and worse.

A couple years ago Miscavige even said privately (I know from one of his attorneys who tried to scare me off) that he was the man to take scientology far beyond where Hubbard could take it. Hubbard started it but it would take Miscavige to truly "clear the planet". He compared Hubbard and himself to those two in the Mormon faith in "similar" positions.

The scary thing is that Miscavige believes all that and will punish in the most cruel fashion anyone who he feels is in the way.

Imagine, for example, how horrible it would be to be an executive in a failing continental area or in a big organization and then get an RTC mission. That mission would be going there "knowing" you are "out ethics RPF bait" and will treat you like shit as the failure there must be your fault for all the above reasons.

Miscavige is a true believer indeed BUT what he believes in includes the very worse of Hubbard which he saw in Hubbard's maddest years. And this includes secretly controlling others, lying, abusing others, controlling all the money possible, seeing huge "out ethics" in everyone but yourself and trusting no one else.

My opinion? Like I said before, Miscavige did not inherit "power", he inherited a curse. And it is a curse of madness.

But he is a "believer". And the real problem with this includes the fact that he sees to the carrying out many dangerous and illegal actions as part of that belief.

It's fine to believe in a sun god and that is constitutionally protected in the USA. But it is not fine, for example, to sacrifice virgins to that sun god no matter how "religious" that practice is considered.

Know what I mean? Miscavige doesn't. But we will teach him IMHO.
________________________________________
Anon of the Opera!!!

Christine: "I am the mask you wear"
Phantom: "It's me they hear"

My blogspot: http://larrybren.blogspot.com/ "
 
Top